Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 23:32:55 +0100 From: Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org> To: Bill Fumerola <billf@jade.chc-chimes.com> Cc: Bill Swingle <unfurl@dub.net>, Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org>, advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: advocacy site Message-ID: <19990804233255.A95138@catkin.nothing-going-on.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908041528090.26385-100000@jade.chc-chimes.com>; from Bill Fumerola on Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 03:29:37PM -0400 References: <19990804130757.A90374@dub.net> <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908041528090.26385-100000@jade.chc-chimes.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 03:29:37PM -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Bill Swingle wrote:
>
> > These are exactly the issues that need to be resolved. The idea of a
> > database back end for the content is nice but is it really necessary? If
> > we can for go the DB backend, integration with the existing site would
> > be much easier. I think that solving this one issue would make the others
> > quite a bit more addressable :)
>
> True, however, with a website that should be very dynamic, do you want to
> see 500(well, not that many) commits a day to an advocacy tree?
Would it be that dynamic? The main FreeBSD source tree (on a good day)
gets ~ 200 separate commits per day. Why would the advocacy site get
anything near that amount of traffic?
> Databases accept remote connections for a reason.
I don't follow your point here.
N
--
[intentional self-reference] can be easily accommodated using a blessed,
non-self-referential dummy head-node whose own object destructor severs
the links.
-- Tom Christiansen in <375143b5@cs.colorado.edu>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990804233255.A95138>